The many intricate steps of Harvard's tenure process make for many chances for an unfair hearing, Faculty say.

While President Neil L. Rudenstine says "every junior Faculty members feels that they're getting a fair hearing," the junior professors themselves often do not agree.

The recommendations of senior Faculty members, often those with the most information about the needs of the department and the candidate under review, are disregarded 15 percent of the time by a one person decision-making body--Rudenstine.

Rudenstine receives additional advice, of course, from Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles and a committee comprised mostly of outside experts, but some say that the Harvard tenure process centralizes power in a way that can be arbitrary.

"It would be useful, especially for junior Faculty morale, recruitment and retention, if Harvard would articulate some rules and then play by them--consistently, across departments," says Cowles Associate Professor in the Humanities Jeffrey Masten, who was denied tenure despite strong departmental support in a controversial case earlier this year.

The composition of the ad hoc committee, a group of five people convened to advise the president about a tenure candidate's scholarly work, has also come under increased fire in recent years, as at least one Faculty member who was refused tenure has publicly claimed--backed by a senior professor--that this body was stacked unfairly against his candidacy.

Critics charge that Harvard's tenure process does not guarantee a fair hearing: department's opinions do not always carry much weight, the ad hoc committee can be biased and the final decision is made by someone who is often far from an expert in the tenure candidate's field.

Not only that, but junior Faculty members are often kept in the dark about the details of their tenure cases and why they are denied tenure.

"At Harvard there's a mystique about many things--and this is just one of [them]," says Associate Professor of Astronomy Alyssa A. Goodman.

Departmental Power

Compared to other universities, departments have a limited role in the Harvard tenure process.

Essentially, the department chair initiates the process, and after approval by the Dean of the Faculty, sends a letter to leading scholars asking for their evaluation of the candidate. After reviewing these letters, senior Faculty in the department vote on whether to support the nomination and write letters explaining their views in full.

But this is the extent of Faculty involvement; the final decision is left to Rudenstine with input from Knowles and the ad hoc committee.

This differs from the tenure process of many schools, professors say, where the department's recommendation can make or break a candidate.

"I have very little role as to the outcome....There is no way a chair, even if she or he wanted to, could significantly alter the course of events," says Leo Damrosch, chair of the English department.